Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74

Summary The following two generic names are recommended for conservation: Eulophia vs. Geodorum and Potentilla with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Ailanthus with feminine gender (because the proposal is unnecessary) and Kyphocarpa with that spel...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:TAXON
Main Author: Applequist, Wendy L.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tax.12993
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tax.12993
id crwiley:10.1002/tax.12993
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1002/tax.12993 2024-06-02T08:05:15+00:00 Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74 Applequist, Wendy L. 2023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tax.12993 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tax.12993 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor TAXON volume 72, issue 4, page 908-922 ISSN 0040-0262 1996-8175 journal-article 2023 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12993 2024-05-03T10:44:47Z Summary The following two generic names are recommended for conservation: Eulophia vs. Geodorum and Potentilla with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Ailanthus with feminine gender (because the proposal is unnecessary) and Kyphocarpa with that spelling (because the proposal is unnecessary). No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve Eriobotrya vs. Rhaphiolepis or Ferulago with conserved type. The following 24 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha wilkesiana vs. A. tricolor , Anthurium × macrolobum vs. A. × dentatum , Anthurium microspadix vs. A. porrectum , Asplenium arifolium with conserved type, Bosea yervamora with conserved type, Bougainvillea spectabilis vs. B. brasiliensis , Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. vs. B. aurea Harrison, Cachrys libanotis with conserved type, Cistus laevis vs. C. pilosus , Cistus violaceus vs. C. racemosus , Erysimum violascens , Ficus trigona with conserved type, Hedyotis diffusa with conserved type, Incarvillea arguta vs. I. diffusa , Lechea verticillata with conserved type, Leea macrophylla vs. Aralia lappifolia , Mesembryanthemum vanputtenii with that spelling, Nicotiana benthamiana with (amended) conserved type, Ophrys sphegodes with conserved type, Pancratium flavum vs. P. croceum , Rubus dolichophyllus vs. R. chingianus , Triticum caninum with conserved type, Urtica involucrata Roxb. vs. U. involucrata Sims, and Warczewiczella marginata vs. Zygopetalum fragrans . The following six species names are not recommended for conservation: Bertolonia carmoi vs. B. ovata , Carex krausei with that spelling, Coprosma grandifolia with conserved type, Coumarouna panamensis vs. Dipteryx oleifera , Lilium dauricum vs. L. pensylvanicum , and Rubus tsangiorum vs. R. hatsushimae . No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve Heliamphora heterodoxa with conserved type or Pomaderris kumarahou with that spelling. The following 15 species names are recommended for rejection: Acalypha supera , Bruea ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Carex krausei Wiley Online Library TAXON 72 4 908 922
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Summary The following two generic names are recommended for conservation: Eulophia vs. Geodorum and Potentilla with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Ailanthus with feminine gender (because the proposal is unnecessary) and Kyphocarpa with that spelling (because the proposal is unnecessary). No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve Eriobotrya vs. Rhaphiolepis or Ferulago with conserved type. The following 24 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha wilkesiana vs. A. tricolor , Anthurium × macrolobum vs. A. × dentatum , Anthurium microspadix vs. A. porrectum , Asplenium arifolium with conserved type, Bosea yervamora with conserved type, Bougainvillea spectabilis vs. B. brasiliensis , Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. vs. B. aurea Harrison, Cachrys libanotis with conserved type, Cistus laevis vs. C. pilosus , Cistus violaceus vs. C. racemosus , Erysimum violascens , Ficus trigona with conserved type, Hedyotis diffusa with conserved type, Incarvillea arguta vs. I. diffusa , Lechea verticillata with conserved type, Leea macrophylla vs. Aralia lappifolia , Mesembryanthemum vanputtenii with that spelling, Nicotiana benthamiana with (amended) conserved type, Ophrys sphegodes with conserved type, Pancratium flavum vs. P. croceum , Rubus dolichophyllus vs. R. chingianus , Triticum caninum with conserved type, Urtica involucrata Roxb. vs. U. involucrata Sims, and Warczewiczella marginata vs. Zygopetalum fragrans . The following six species names are not recommended for conservation: Bertolonia carmoi vs. B. ovata , Carex krausei with that spelling, Coprosma grandifolia with conserved type, Coumarouna panamensis vs. Dipteryx oleifera , Lilium dauricum vs. L. pensylvanicum , and Rubus tsangiorum vs. R. hatsushimae . No recommendation is made regarding proposals to conserve Heliamphora heterodoxa with conserved type or Pomaderris kumarahou with that spelling. The following 15 species names are recommended for rejection: Acalypha supera , Bruea ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Applequist, Wendy L.
spellingShingle Applequist, Wendy L.
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
author_facet Applequist, Wendy L.
author_sort Applequist, Wendy L.
title Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
title_short Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
title_full Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
title_fullStr Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
title_full_unstemmed Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 74
title_sort report of the nomenclature committee for vascular plants: 74
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2023
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tax.12993
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tax.12993
genre Carex krausei
genre_facet Carex krausei
op_source TAXON
volume 72, issue 4, page 908-922
ISSN 0040-0262 1996-8175
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12993
container_title TAXON
container_volume 72
container_issue 4
container_start_page 908
op_container_end_page 922
_version_ 1800750041173852160